Your evidence: · All of your evidence should be in the template · All of your evidence should have a tag · Should be a tag that will meaningfully describe where the argument will go/ you will be likely to put it · Have a document map open at all times · Make sure your cards are underlined
Clash Drills
Anushka’s 2nc: · 2nc didn’t answer 2ac arguments--- was just an extension of 1nc arguments · The 2nc must have answers to 2ac arguments · The structure we follow on off-case positions should mirror 2ac structure. · Do not say extend · For most of the 2nc you are making new arguments on the flow · Do not use the word extend. Reference a 2ac argument “tnw’s not key” (this quickly orients your judge, label is 2-3 words), “that’s our blank evidence” o The argument is that other factors already provide a counter o Important for you to create the reference that accurately summarized the argument instead of for you to mirror their language · 2nd argument: “Iranian prolif key” o When talking about your opponents evidence it is more useful to talk about it in the form of an argument or a claim o Difficult to understand what the argument is if you are only explaining what their card is wrong about
· Project the perception of calm · Perceptual evidence is important in debate · Attempt to work on practicing projecting calm assurance · Uniqueness argument—strengthened evidence of perception now · In a world where turkey perceives a strengthened level of commitment they will be likely to perceive us as allies
Let’s start a new flow.
Marissa 2ac: · Want a label for your arguments. · Calm. Confidence. · Speaking a little bit into the computer, try to be a little louder · Transition. Transition. Transition. Organizational disaster when judges don’t know you have switched a page. · Not easy to follow exactly what evidence is being referred to. · Debates occur before your judges have seen any cards. Don’t debate as though the judges have blocks in front of them. Your judge does not have access to your opponent’s blocks. · The judge will look at the evidence to see who is right about the interpretation of the evidence, but it is very important that the claim is crystal clear · Judges have more pen time when speeches are broken up by cards. This is what makes it impossible sometimes when people start off on T and the judge gets to a position where the first 3 or 4 arguments made are analytics with no time to pause for evidence. This is such a temptation because in a debate you are writing down all of the parts of their evidence that suck, and then want to read one or the other. You want to disperse these arguments. Don’t begin with a series of analytics followed by a series of cards. · Very good that she extended the case impact. Not done in the most efficient way possible. You can tag this argument as the impact to your case: retaliation. o if you only frame the impact to your case as solving the impact to your disad there is a very big problem: there is no external impact.
Maria 2nc: · You have a tendency to elongate the syllable before you take a breath. · Last part of when you speak with one breath should be the same as everything else · Label the 2ac arguments more concisely · Good that you try to construct an even if statement · “Even if they use the weapons, nuclear terrorism isn’t likely to happen” but if they use the weapons, then nuclear terrorism has already happened. o “even if they acquire they don’t have the motivation” is better and makes more sense · Explain the impact story by using the impacts in the evidence. · Don’t need the turkey prolif probability evidence · They made timeframe arguments, maybe tag the piece of evidence a little differently.
Ben’s 2nc: · Breath at punctuation · Much more difficult to understand you if you don’t speak in complete sentences · Don’t group arguments that aren’t next to each other.
Tristan 1ar: · Group first 3 arguments: no motivation, can’t deploy, won’t use. · Arg reference in the 1ar needs to be especially short · Two schools of thought on this: short argument reference with groups or use the technique of embedded clash. · Embedded clash when it works, is great, but when it doesn’t work it’s horrible. · We need a quick grouping of the case arguments, in which we use a form of embedded clash in responding to both of their arguments · Important to extend that prolif has a long timeframe because maria didn’t really answer it
Keshav’s 1ar · Less time on case, more time on the disad · Arguments you can cut from the case debate: the second argument about times square bombing, make a probability argument instead.
Michelle 1ar: · The impact work wasn’t warranted. Use the extra time to explain more
Emily 1ar: · Don’t give an underview · Spend more time on the link debate
Kerijiwal 1ar: · Start off slower · Impact calc is good but long
BBQ’s 2nr: · Don’t concede case, do impact calculus that minimizes the impact debate · You don’t need to go to the case flow at all if you do choose to not go for case · Don’t need to label your impact calculus—you can kind of just do it · Put the impact calculus at the top · Explain the warrants in your evidence more.
When you are cutting cards: · Use the template · If the template doesn’t work, talk to Alex Gulakov · Keep your document map or navigation pane open · Tagging as you go is important, have at the very least a heading that is common to an entire section · Hard to know what you have, if you are not quickly about to figure out the sets of arguments you have been working on · Even harder when compiling/working in a group · If not clear to you what purpose a card would serve, still important to keep that card around and talk to the lab leaders about them. · Put your name at the end of the cite of each card you cut. Initials are fine. · Cards need to be specific to a region in order to be useful o Especially true for your internal link cards
Ramakrishnan-Turner 7/21/2010
Your evidence:
· All of your evidence should be in the template
· All of your evidence should have a tag
· Should be a tag that will meaningfully describe where the argument will go/ you will be likely to put it
· Have a document map open at all times
· Make sure your cards are underlined
Clash Drills
Anushka’s 2nc:
· 2nc didn’t answer 2ac arguments--- was just an extension of 1nc arguments
· The 2nc must have answers to 2ac arguments
· The structure we follow on off-case positions should mirror 2ac structure.
· Do not say extend
· For most of the 2nc you are making new arguments on the flow
· Do not use the word extend. Reference a 2ac argument “tnw’s not key” (this quickly orients your judge, label is 2-3 words), “that’s our blank evidence”
o The argument is that other factors already provide a counter
o Important for you to create the reference that accurately summarized the argument instead of for you to mirror their language
· 2nd argument: “Iranian prolif key”
o When talking about your opponents evidence it is more useful to talk about it in the form of an argument or a claim
o Difficult to understand what the argument is if you are only explaining what their card is wrong about
· Project the perception of calm
· Perceptual evidence is important in debate
· Attempt to work on practicing projecting calm assurance
· Uniqueness argument—strengthened evidence of perception now
· In a world where turkey perceives a strengthened level of commitment they will be likely to perceive us as allies
Let’s start a new flow.
Marissa 2ac:
· Want a label for your arguments.
· Calm. Confidence.
· Speaking a little bit into the computer, try to be a little louder
· Transition. Transition. Transition. Organizational disaster when judges don’t know you have switched a page.
· Not easy to follow exactly what evidence is being referred to.
· Debates occur before your judges have seen any cards. Don’t debate as though the judges have blocks in front of them. Your judge does not have access to your opponent’s blocks.
· The judge will look at the evidence to see who is right about the interpretation of the evidence, but it is very important that the claim is crystal clear
· Judges have more pen time when speeches are broken up by cards. This is what makes it impossible sometimes when people start off on T and the judge gets to a position where the first 3 or 4 arguments made are analytics with no time to pause for evidence. This is such a temptation because in a debate you are writing down all of the parts of their evidence that suck, and then want to read one or the other. You want to disperse these arguments. Don’t begin with a series of analytics followed by a series of cards.
· Very good that she extended the case impact. Not done in the most efficient way possible. You can tag this argument as the impact to your case: retaliation.
o if you only frame the impact to your case as solving the impact to your disad there is a very big problem: there is no external impact.
Maria 2nc:
· You have a tendency to elongate the syllable before you take a breath.
· Last part of when you speak with one breath should be the same as everything else
· Label the 2ac arguments more concisely
· Good that you try to construct an even if statement
· “Even if they use the weapons, nuclear terrorism isn’t likely to happen” but if they use the weapons, then nuclear terrorism has already happened.
o “even if they acquire they don’t have the motivation” is better and makes more sense
· Explain the impact story by using the impacts in the evidence.
· Don’t need the turkey prolif probability evidence
· They made timeframe arguments, maybe tag the piece of evidence a little differently.
Ben’s 2nc:
· Breath at punctuation
· Much more difficult to understand you if you don’t speak in complete sentences
· Don’t group arguments that aren’t next to each other.
Tristan 1ar:
· Group first 3 arguments: no motivation, can’t deploy, won’t use.
· Arg reference in the 1ar needs to be especially short
· Two schools of thought on this: short argument reference with groups or use the technique of embedded clash.
· Embedded clash when it works, is great, but when it doesn’t work it’s horrible.
· We need a quick grouping of the case arguments, in which we use a form of embedded clash in responding to both of their arguments
· Important to extend that prolif has a long timeframe because maria didn’t really answer it
Keshav’s 1ar
· Less time on case, more time on the disad
· Arguments you can cut from the case debate: the second argument about times square bombing, make a probability argument instead.
Michelle 1ar:
· The impact work wasn’t warranted. Use the extra time to explain more
Emily 1ar:
· Don’t give an underview
· Spend more time on the link debate
Kerijiwal 1ar:
· Start off slower
· Impact calc is good but long
BBQ’s 2nr:
· Don’t concede case, do impact calculus that minimizes the impact debate
· You don’t need to go to the case flow at all if you do choose to not go for case
· Don’t need to label your impact calculus—you can kind of just do it
· Put the impact calculus at the top
· Explain the warrants in your evidence more.
When you are cutting cards:
· Use the template
· If the template doesn’t work, talk to Alex Gulakov
· Keep your document map or navigation pane open
· Tagging as you go is important, have at the very least a heading that is common to an entire section
· Hard to know what you have, if you are not quickly about to figure out the sets of arguments you have been working on
· Even harder when compiling/working in a group
· If not clear to you what purpose a card would serve, still important to keep that card around and talk to the lab leaders about them.
· Put your name at the end of the cite of each card you cut. Initials are fine.
· Cards need to be specific to a region in order to be useful
o Especially true for your internal link cards